Protein Farts and 240,
I actually am a physicist, not an Adonis physicist... a real one. So I'll try to answer these questions:
1) the shadows on the moon point in different directions
...valid point, but those particular photos were taken with a fish-eye lens and that distorts the image topography in a manner that is consistent with the inconsistencies in the pictures. There are several people who believe that some of the photos were studio-shot fakes... that position has not been conclusively debunked. However, that does not debunk the landing itself.
2) there is no blast crater under the lem
...there shouldn't be. The lander only had 600 lbs of thrust; spread over the area under the lander that simply isn't enough to disrupt the dust. It's comparable to a 200 lb man jumping up into the air on Earth... he doesn't kick up a cloud of dust.
It's difficult to understand unless you do the maths: 600 lbs of thrust spread over about 200 square feet is only about 3 lbs per square foot... that might kick up some dust... BUT there is no atmosphere on the moon; that means no air currents, no vacuum effect and nothing to hinder the dispersal of the exhaust. Scale experiments have been done to refute this claim but somehow people still want to believe it.
3) how the fuck were we talking to folks on the moon in real time??
...it's only 250,000 miles away, that's only a 1.34 second lag (and to the best of my knowledge Nasa edited out the pauses by using a slight delay on the broadcast). This isn't so much a question of why there wasn't much of a lag with the moon lander, it's just that people are so used to long lags on telephone calls. A transamerican (LA to NY for example) telephone call might be boosted a couple of dozens times (introducing a lag at every boosting station) and it travels over copper wires most of the way (slower than the speed of light) and when it does travel along fibre optics it gets a delay at the digital converters.
Nasa spoke to those guys via radio.
4) how did the asstranauts not get sick from radiation while crossing the van allen radiation belt? when there ws no in built radiation protection
...none of the guys working on mapping the damage at Chernobyl got cancer either. Seems we just overestimated how dangerous very high energy gamma rays are. The titanium shell of the lander was enough to absorb the alpha and beta particles, the gamma rays were so strong they passed right through the shell and the astronauts without interacting. The astronauts got a very high dose, probably comparable to sitting in an x-ray machine for a couple of days...
The radiation comprising the Van Allen belt (charged particles) is unable to pass through metal. An inch of titanium would have been totally opaque to such radiation.
5) how did we miss out on all the micro metorites when the lunad mon had no protection built in it
...several of the ships were hit by micrometeorites. They were just lucky... it's a statistical risk.
6) why r there r stars visible on ANY of the pix on the moon ..since there is no atmosphere there should be VERY visible
...the contrast. It's impossible to photograph both something very dim (a star) and something very bright (an sunshine illuminated astronaut on a illuminated white surface) simultaneously. If the threshold/exposure was set to photograph a star, the glow from the astronaut would white out the photograph. hence the exposures were short and the stars didn't show up.
Hope this answers some questions, by the bye Buzz Aldrin should have shot that prick.
The Luke
